I don't believe the "sole point of his *vision* in the first place: That the "dry bones" (Israel) could seem a hopelessly dead situation, and yet God promises that life will be breathed into their "hopeless" situation."
It is not exactly clear what you mean by this, but you could be interpreted as saying that our "hopelessly dead situation" is troubles with our neighbors, lost job, etc. And the new life He breathes into them is perhaps a job, dissolution of trouble, or even a new attitude.
All of this may be true. But it is quite a different story when we are really dead, as dead as dry bones, and the new life is a resurrected life. If God does such things for us, it is not unreasonable to believe He could and did to the same for the dry bones.
If, on the other hand, Ezekiel only had a vision and there was no literal transformation from death to life, then perhaps all this resurrection talk is also just a metaphor for a new kind of attitude or the like.
It is possible, of course, to hold, as you do I'm sure, that there is a real bodily resurrection and Ezekiel was only speaking of a vision. My only point is that it can matter a great deal what you take to be taking place.
It makes a difference whether you are committed to the possibility that it was more than a vision. Indeed, I suggest, it makes a big difference. For, otherwise, you attest that it is impossible that, or extraordinarily unlikely that, it was anything more than a vision, a position that stands very close to a kind of metaphysics, a difference that ought to matter.
bill
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:50:43 -0500, mrb22667@kansas.net wrote:
> In the junior-high Sunday school which I taught this last Sunday, we read
> and
> discussed Ezekiel and his vision of the dry bones. I resolved ahead of
> time
> that I would NOT broach the subject of whether or not this was a literal
> event
> (though I would gladly discuss it if they brought it up and were curious
> about
> that aspect.) I was delighted when it was not brought up and we focused
> entirely on the sole point of his *vision* in the first place: That the
> "dry
> bones" (Israel) could seem a hopelessly dead situation, and yet God
> promises
> that life will be breathed into their "hopeless" situation. I think it
> tragic
> that our exploration of so many Biblical prophecies and passages gets
> hijacked
> by our modern obsession with scientific literalness so that the main
> points
> being communicated get lost; ---and even worse: that we dare to presume
> that
> its historic/scientific truth is prerequisite to our awarding it any
> further
> consideration of deeper profundity or truth.
>
> --Merv
>
>
> Quoting gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>
>> > The idea of a firmament is wrong. Same with the idea of the Earth
> being
>> > stationary and unmoveable (it is moving 67,000 mph around the Sun),
> and
>> the
>> > universe being geocentric.
>>
>> In spite of their past use to oppose Copernicanism, I Chronicles 16:30,
>> Psalm 93:1, and Psalm 104:5 do not appear to be concerned with celestial
>> mechanics. They contain no hint of addressing the relationship of the
>> earth to other bodies. The poets appear to be making an analogy with a
>> building that is so well constructed that it can't be shaken off its
>> foundation.
>>
>> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 22 00:07:27 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 22 2009 - 00:07:28 EDT